When Trump declared on January 2 that the United States was "locked and loaded" to support Iranian protesters, the warning was meant to restrain Tehran. Instead, it may have had the opposite effect - giving the regime a perverse incentive to crush the uprising as fast as possible before American military power could arrive.
That is the assessment of Ali Vaez, Director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group, writing in Foreign Affairs, as reported by "Hvylya".
The protests had erupted in late December, initially driven by merchants dismayed at the collapsing national currency. The anger quickly spread nationwide, with crowds calling for the regime's demise. What followed was an intensely bloody crackdown: at least several thousand were killed. Trump's response to this violence was a marked shift from past American practice, which had largely revolved around "statements of support for the rights of protesters, condemnatory rhetoric against the government, and sanctions against those involved in repression."
But Trump's initial moves were economic and technological, not military. He announced 25 percent tariffs on those trading with the Islamic Republic, added sanctions against Iranian "shadow banking" networks, and personally engaged Elon Musk to help counter Tehran's internet blackout, reportedly dispatching thousands of Starlink units into the country.
The critical gap between rhetoric and action created what Vaez describes as a perverse dynamic. "Precisely because Trump's threats were not immediately backed by military posture preparedness, they may have served as a perverse incentive for the regime to reestablish control, whatever the cost, before the United States could deploy military assets to the region." The regime moved with what the analyst calls "alarming alacrity" - killing thousands to crush the movement's momentum before American firepower could be positioned to intervene.
Also read: "Too Late": Trump Shuts the Door on Iran Talks Just as Tehran Made a Secret Move